America III: Going Deutsche

[Dogg Thang]

No, I can understand why some might think that but it's flawed thinking. To give a more basic example, you're not going to say that we should allow people to murder others because otherwise we'd just push the murderers into the shadows. Even some less extreme and not even illegal activities are okay being pushed into the shadows. Not everything deserves equal weight or an equal platform. If Nazis turned up to your street every single day, how many days would it take before you wanted them moved on? You might well say that, as much as you disagree with them, unless they are actively committing crimes they can hold their hateful views and can talk about them and so on but you're not going to want them shouting in your street every day. Even with things you actually like, you might not want to give them equal placement - you might not quite be sure that the butt plug shop you like should be in between Mothercare and Toys R Us. It's fine for the butt plug shop to be somewhere where you need you to go a little out of your way.

Social media is our streets now. And these gob****es have been shouting in our streets where we are. Where we live. About worse stuff than butt plugs.

It's okay that they get moved off those streets. They won't stop existing but it will certainly reduce them recruiting others, sends a message that it's not okay and gets them out of the faces of regular people. This is a good thing.

[QualityChimp]

I take it back then, i read that as he was with and part of them as a group.

Yeah, he's documented several protests and that thread details the differences between them, mainly zillions of cops for BLM but 3 cops, 8 feds and a janitor for "Stop the Steal".

Well worth a read. Scary but interesting.

[MartyG]

Cutting off this groups ability to communicate is just going to bring out the crazy in these people more.

No, but it'll make it far more difficult to reach, recruit and organise en-mass, which is what these platforms facilitate.

Did anyone really think about leaving the EU in the millions until they were told leaving the EU would give them untold riches**

Just like with a virus - the less people you can reach, the less people get infected.

It's fine for the butt plug shop to be somewhere where you need you to go a little out of your way.

Such as a back alley.






** Narrator: It didn't give them untold riches

[Hirst]

Websites aren't a democracy and the more "normal" it is for horrible stuff to be tolerated, the more people do it. People with objectionable opinions who find enough folks who agree with them will think "see, I'm right to think this". That's why Neogaf is such a toilet.

These crazed loners are welcome to set up their own website or social media or whatever, but they might need to create the entire infrastructure to support it because nobody will want it on their domain, hosting, etc. The difficulty in doing so might clue them into the fact that what they want isn't socially acceptable, much like how I imagine it isn't easy for the NF to book out pub function rooms for talks any more.

[Dogg Thang]

Such as a back alley.

Wonderful. Close up the forum for the day, this is the peak right here.

[QualityChimp]

Good work, Martino.

A lot of people seem surprised that it's not "free speech" on these platforms just because you don't pay money to them.
They're still businesses that can choose who can and can't post on it, like silencing Trump is the first time they've heard people can say bad things on them and get banned.

It's that steadfast refusal to associate somebody getting banned for inciting violence elsewhere is banworthy, but Trump's actions aren't.

Like with Dogg's battery analogy, it's annoying just how many people are making a stand in the last 5 minutes of Trump's presidency.
All these Republicans, news channels and social media sites deciding him inciting "Save the Steal" is the line is crossed, but everything else he's said and done in the past 4 years is fine and dandy.

[Lebowski]

No, I can understand why some might think that but it's flawed thinking. To give a more basic example, you're not going to say that we should allow people to murder others because otherwise we'd just push the murderers into the shadows. Even some less extreme and not even illegal activities are okay being pushed into the shadows. Not everything deserves equal weight or an equal platform. If Nazis turned up to your street every single day, how many days would it take before you wanted them moved on? You might well say that, as much as you disagree with them, unless they are actively committing crimes they can hold their hateful views and can talk about them and so on but you're not going to want them shouting in your street every day. Even with things you actually like, you might not want to give them equal placement - you might not quite be sure that the butt plug shop you like should be in between Mothercare and Toys R Us. It's fine for the butt plug shop to be somewhere where you need you to go a little out of your way.

Social media is our streets now. And these gob****es have been shouting in our streets where we are. Where we live. About worse stuff than butt plugs.

It's okay that they get moved off those streets. They won't stop existing but it will certainly reduce them recruiting others, sends a message that it's not okay and gets them out of the faces of regular people. This is a good thing.

I was with you until you said Nazis isn't their some internet rule where you immediately jump ship from any conversation when the Nazi's show up, I know its kind of dangerous but until now the movement has been kind of a laughing stock its only now they have moved in to serious criminal behavior that they have been remove hopefully it will see people leaving trumps movement in droves.

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, I think it's different now that we're dealing with actual Nazis. We're living Godwin's law right now.

[MartyG]

A lot of people seem surprised that it's not "free speech" on these platforms just because you don't pay money to them.

People who don't respect the US constitution don't understand the 1st Amendment shocker - the one that nowhere within it states you have free speech free from criticism or consequences, merely that the government cannot pass law to restrict opinion.

Trump acting on calls to restrict what Twitter can or cannot publish on its site would be a true example of a breach of the 1st Amendment.

[Mayhem]

The claims I often see is that BLM violence calls and protests were not silenced, but Trump has been now even though it was pretty much the same thing, and more people have died, been injured, businesses ruined etc by BLM protests and violence. And claims from the left that nothing has been done against right wing mobs. There's certainly a lot going on, or not. A minority on both sides being the loudest and proving both sides can be terrible. It either means FB, Twitter and its ilk are acting randomly, or seemingly not at all, and I'm more inclined to believe the latter. Although the former does happen too.

[Dogg Thang]

Not sure about both sidesing this one, to be honest. It's not a great position to take that the idea that black lives matter and they shouldn't be constantly murdered by cops is an extreme view comparable with the desire to overthrow the results of a democratic election largely stoked by white supremacists. It's a tricky thing to equate the two.

Edit: why not, I'll go a step further. People both sidesing issues generally is mostly disingenuous, is an attempt to take focus away from the real problems and is certainly a factor in how we got where we are.

[fishbowlhead]

People who don't respect the US constitution don't understand the 1st Amendment shocker - the one that nowhere within it states you have free speech free from criticism or consequences, merely that the government cannot pass law to restrict opinion.

Trump acting on calls to restrict what Twitter can or cannot publish on its site would be a true example of a breach of the 1st Amendment.

But but were ALLOWED fully automatic weapons of war in our homes because of the constitution!

Are you really mr redneck? Are you?

[saif]

It is worth saying that pushing these views underground which the no social media policy "risks" doing is a bloody good outcome. I know I preferred living in Britain when it felt like being openly racist was pushed underground.
It is far harder to grow plants and flowers underground so let them move around in their seedy, dank underground circles so that you have to work really hard to hear this hateful stuff. And future generations will get the benefit. We are in a better place for it having happened before.

[MartyG]

But but were ALLOWED fully automatic weapons of war in our homes because of the constitution!

Are you really mr redneck? Are you?

That's 2nd Amendment and it's really not very specific. Strictly speaking, it does not prohibit the right to thermonuclear warheads - the amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Arms itself is not defined, it's only from supreme court subsequent rulings that certainly arms have been restricted, rather than the 2nd Amendment itself prohibiting them.

2nd Amendment purists would argue they should be able to own them.

[Dogg Thang]

That's 2nd Amendment and it's really not very specific. Strictly speaking, it does not prohibit the right to thermonuclear warheads - the amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Arms itself is not defined.

There is also the part about the militia which seems to suggest they didn't think everyone should have a gun but the sentence order is weird so I don't know - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."